July 23, 2007

1. Just waiting for this thing to kick off. I'll add to this post, numbering the paragraphs as I go.

2. Intro, from some YouTube clip. Richardson looks terrified. Clinton, resolute. But now, it's Anderson Cooper, in the flesh. Couldn't someone have Tubed him? Biden glistens. Cooper blabs about how the questions were "heartfelt" so they had trouble choosing. Now, he's showing some cute clips that aren't chosen. Cooper cruelly slams some 5-year-old girl for being a puppet of her parents. And he hilariously slams the Biden campaign for its trick getting a lot of YouTubers to ask the same question.

3. Question 1: Politicians always make promises, but then they don't do anything. How will you be different? A good meta question. Unfortunately, we're getting an answer from Dodd. He got the job done in the Senate. Fine, but who cares about Dodd? Ah, now Obama. We need to "change how business is done in Washington." He brings "perspective" -- the perspective that we need to change.

4. Question 2, for Kucinich. How would we be better off with him? Why'd CNN pick this question? I think we know. They're packaging up li'l Dennis to set him aside for the rest of the night.

5. Kucinich is wearing a checked shirt. The hell? What male wears a checked shirt?! Hillary was "involved in the question," so Cooper throws it over to her. Wow! She's wearing an orange jacket textured with curving, scalloped lines. It reminds me of a chair we had in the 1950s, but it actually looks rather pretty and definitely sets her apart from the guys who absolutely are not free to wear orange suits. She speaks in a solid, stern voice that has nothing to do with wavy orange patterns. She speaks in a straight, navy blue line. Obama gets included here too, and he's elegant in a gray suit and a blue tie. His gestures look flowing as I scroll through them in slo-mo, looking for the perfect frame to post here. Just wait a few minutes.

6. Hillary is asked to define "liberal" and to say if she is one. She doesn't like what other people have done to the good old word, so she prefers "progressive." The problem with "liberal" is that people think it means government will do everything for you, but "progressive" seems to be about giving people "tools" to better themselves. Cooper throws it to Gravel. Is he a liberal? He lights into Obama for taking money from lobbyists.

7. The next question gets applause: What if they had to pick a Republican running mate? Who would it be? Biden fails to answer the question. He just lists his accomplishments. Edwards says Chuck Hagel, then brushes the question aside and runs through his issues. No one else gets the question! Blah! Cool question. Crap nonanswers. [ADDED, reading the transcript: Biden did blurt out "Chuck Hagel" before going on about his accomplishments. The Edwards just copied him.]

8. Should African-Americans get reparations for slavery? Edwards: no (but blah, blah, blah other stuff about African-Americans). Obama cleverly says the reparations should be "investment in our schools." Cooper asks the whole group. Kucinich comes forward, and his answer begins "The Bible says...." Yeesh! Imagine if a Republican started an answer that way.

9. Richardson's first chance to speak is about Hurricane Katrina. Unfortunately, he seems robotic and looks awful -- afraid to spend money on makeup? -- and I feel like I'm watching the man -- whom I respect -- slip into oblivion.

10. "Not my question!" Cooper proclaims as he repeats a question from a black man to Obama: What about the way they're saying you're not "authentically black"? Obama refers to trying to catch a cab, that is, he reminds us he's been subjected to bias because of the way he looks to people who don't know anything about his ancestry and upbringing. He then segues to talking about how he's concerned about race issues. Clinton is then asked about being a woman. "I may be able to break that hardest of glass ceilings." For some reason, this line touches me, and I've been steely toward Clinton as she's played the sex card in the past. She's running not as a woman, she says (now!), but because she thinks she's the "best person." But she ends saying her taking office would send a nice message to "a lot of little girls and boys around the world."

11. Cooper asks Edwards about the way his wife says he's better for women than Hillary is. He talks about poverty, wages, and health care.

12. Two lesbians ask if they should be allowed to marry. Kucinich, of course, says yes. Dodd blathers about how one ought to treat people who happen to have a different sexual orientation but then says "civil unions" and denies marriage. Richardson would do "what is achievable" -- and that is civil unions. He volunteers that he'd reject "Don't ask, don't tell."

13. A reverend asks about the way religion is used to deny rights to gay persons. Edwards goes first and says he feels "enormous conflict" about the issue and he's been on a "journey" about it. His wife supports gay marriage though. I'm really skeptical about this notion that a candidate's spouse can represent positions for him, so that he gets to seem somehow sympathetic to it when he's not for it. What if President Bush tried to appease people who don't like the war in Iraq by telling us that Laura was actually opposed to it? We'd just laugh at him! The reverend turns out to be in the audience, and Cooper asks him how he liked the answer. Edwards now admits that it's wrong to use religion as the basis for denying gay people their rights.

14. What are they thinking?

Clinton: I've got the nomination in my clutches.

Obama: I'm in this!

Richardson: I'm doomed. Either that or he's catching up on his reading and doesn't know he's doomed.

15. How do we pull out of Iraq now? Even if you opposed the war to start. It's like leaving a newborn baby to take care of itself. Obama says we should "be careful" getting out but also that we need to make it clear that "there is no military solution."

16. A mother of a soldier asks why the Congress hasn't stopped the war yet. Are the Democrats holding back for fear of getting blamed for losing the war? This question gets applause. Clinton goes first. No real answer. Kucinich lights on fire: All we need to do is cut off the funds. We can do it! Then Dodd flares up. Iraq is keeping us from saving Darfur. Sure. Richardson says he's different. Bring all the troops home by the end of the year. The war is a "quagmire." "It's endless." "Get it done."

17. Gravel yells that all the soldiers who died in Vietnam died in vain, because "you can now go to Hanoi and get a Baskin-Robbins ice cream cone." And now, in Iraq, they are all dying in vain! Cooper throws it to Obama: Have all the soldiers in Iraq died in vain? Obama switches to the issue of going into Iraq. Cooper refocuses him, and he says no. Soldiers never die in vain (somehow). Edwards gets the question, and he too realizes he's got to deny that the soldiers die in vain.

18. Should women have to register for the military at age 18 the way men do? Yes: Dodd, Clinton, Edwards, Gravel.

19. Nice question for Clinton: How will you be effective with the Arab states when they are so biased against women? Oh, they'll take her seriously, she tells us. In fact, just having a woman President will be an effective statement. I like that. And I'd kind of like to see that.

20. They go to extreme closeup for Edwards for some reason:

21. Would you meet -- "without precondition" -- with the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Cuba, North Korea? Obama: "I would!" Hillary: "I will not promise..." You don't make promises like that without knowing more about how it will be used. She's got the more responsible answer, clearly. Edwards: "Yes," but Clinton is right. A little fence-straddling. And this is the precise point in the debate where I conclude -- I'd been toying with the conclusion -- that Clinton is the superior candidate.

22. "How many family members do you have serving in uniform?" asks a man with many military deaths in his family. The answers devolve into more talk about the plan to withdraw troops.

23. "Who was your favorite teacher and why?" Gravel claims some brother recognized his "dyslexia." Come on! Who talked about "dyslexia" back when Gravel was a kid? Obama had a teacher who made him feel special for having lived outside of the country. Biden talks about a priest who taught him something about the greatest sin... and his microphone malfunctions, so we don't really hear it. Edwards had a teacher who taught him that a guy could have a daddy who worked in a mill and .... blah blah blah... teacher wants li'l Johnny to be President.

24. A question about No Child Left Behind is written on a series of placards, "Subterranean Homesick Blues"-style. Richardson would scrap it -- and give teachers a $40,000 a year minimum wage, emphasize math and science, and have a "major federal program" for "music, dancing, sculpture, and the arts." Finally! A President who cares about sculpture. Biden: No Child Left Behind -- which he voted for -- was "a mistake." "Ya need better teachers." No kidding!

25. Would you send your kids to private school? Edwards: His kids all went to public school. Hillary: Chelsea went to public school "until we moved to Washington." "The press would never leave her alone." Obama: His kids went to a private school because it was near their house. Most in-your-face answer of the night, from Biden: "My kids did go to private school. It's because right after I got elected my wife and daughter were killed. I had two sons who survived." His sister helped him with those sons and sent them to Catholic school. He looks a little pissed off at having to talk about this. The poor man. Did you remember his terrible tragedy? Kucinich: Public school! Gravel: Both. Competition is good! Dodd: Veers off topic and lectures us about whatever. [ADDED, on reading the transcript: Biden's sister brought the sons to the Friends school, and later, he sent them to Catholic school.]

26. Sex education. Obama gets a chance to respond to Romney, who recently criticized him for saying he supported age-appropriate education for young schoolkids. He gives the right answer: Kids need to know if someone is "encroaching on their privacy."

27. They get really YouTubish with two Tennessee guys who ask whether all the press about Al Gore running hurts y'all's feelins. This gives all the candidates a chance to display their best, big, toothy smiles. No actual answers, just another video, a snowman talking -- in the style of Mr. Bill -- about Gore's big issue, global warming. Then, there's a cute video about energy conservation. Gravel says tax people on what they spend, not what they earn. Dodd wants to take us down to a 55 mile an hour speed limit, Jimmy Carter-style.

28. Nuclear power. Edwards: No. He's for "bio" fuel. He's against liquefied coal, because it's a "carbon-based" fuel. Like his "bio" fuel isn't. Obama: We should "explore nuclear power." Clinton: She's "agnostic" about nuclear power. "It can be a win-win if we do it right."

29. Would you work -- as President -- for the minimum wage? Edwards and Clinton -- totally rich -- both say sure. Obama is nicely set up to point out they're rich... even though "We don't have Mitt Romney money."

30. Why not make everyone pay Social Security taxes on all of their income? Dodd says yes. Obama won't answer. No one else speaks.

32. A Virginia guy strums a guitar and sings about taxes. He doesn't like them. Only Biden answers, and he deserves credit for admitting that the government needs your money, but then he does the standard Democratic thing of saying he'd just take away the tax benefits the rich folks have.

33. Another question about Democrats and taxes. Only Kucinich answers.

34. Cooper prepares us for a barrage of questions about health care. Edwards shows his trial lawyer stuff wringing sympathy out of us with the story of a man who couldn't speak because he couldn't afford surgery that would restore his speech. Hillary wants "decency and respect" for everyone.

35. God and guns. One guy shows a quarter and recites the motto "In God We Trust." Biden's okay with it. Another guy says he doesn't believe in God and worries about Democrats pandering to religion the way the Republicans do. Blah blah blah... what do you expect them to say?

36. The end. The end of my TiVo anyway. I did get a little "off-live" tonight. It's hard to resist the power of the remote controller. If it persisted beyond 2 hours, I missed it. I guess there was something about guns. Anyway, that's it for me. So, okay, what do I think of the YouTube experiment and the way CNN filtered the raw questioning? I think they did pretty well. And, frankly, all the candidates did reasonably well. But, it's clear too that the top 3 that we knew coming in were the top 3 really are the top 3. I think John Edwards did a nice job of pulling himself up even with Barack Obama. And, likewise, Hillary Clinton let us know she's #1. Bill Richardson failed to distinguish himself from the rest of the pack. And so, we have a top 3, with a clear frontrunner. Now, can we see a debate with those 3? Please, before it's rammed down our throats that Hillary is inevitable? I'm not against Hillary. I found her appealing tonight. But I would like to see her tested against Edwards and Obama, without the pointless excess of Gravel and Kucinich... and... Dodd... and, sorry... Biden and Richardson.

37. Writing the next morning, with the transcript, I can see the last part, about guns. Biden calls the guy in the video crazy: "I don't know that he is mentally qualified to own that gun. I'm being serious.... Look, we should be working with law enforcement, right now, to make sure that we protect people against people who don't -- are not capable of knowing what to do with a gun because they're either mentally imbalanced and/or because they have a criminal record, and I hope he doesn't come looking for me." I didn't see the video, so maybe the guy did look crazy -- he was holding his gun and calling it his "baby" -- but Biden seems awfully interested in taking away guns.

38. Finally, they are asked to look at the person to their left and say one thing they don't like about them. Most of them won't say anything bad, but Edwards snarks about Hillary's jacket: "I'm not sure about that coat." Which might seem cute, but might piss women off. Hillary comes back with: "Yes, John, it's a good thing we're ending soon." Which sounds like a wife telling her husband he's had too much to drink. But she's supposed to talk about Obama, so she says: "I admire and like very much Barack." I find it hard to believe a sentence that sounds like it was translated from a foreign language. But then, why should she like very much Barack? She'd like very much less Barack. Then Obama one-ups Edwards with "I actually like Hillary's jacket. I don't know what's wrong with it." Which could be read as a double insult. First, it puts down Edwards for knocking the lady's clothes. And second, it subtly implies that Edwards is feminine: Obama can't tell what is wrong with the jacket, because he's a man and doesn't know about fashion, not like some other men, who aren't manly enough.

39. Cooper ends with a pitch for YouTube and the Republican debates. So they're using this format again. Now that people have seen the videos -- and which videos CNN chooses -- it should have an effect on the quality of the next set of videos. What are the lessons? You can do humor and you can speak through animation or puppetry as long as you ask a dead serious question, like that snowman did. It helps to personify the question, like those lesbians or the man with dead soldiers in his his family. And it seems to work to sound a little inept or too casual in the first second and a half, but then quickly get out a clear question. They also obviously want questions in the same basic areas they'd hit if they were writing their own questions, so you might choose something boring -- like Social Security -- that not too many other people will do but that CNN will think has to get in. Good luck.

Wow! She's wearing an orange jacket textured with curving, scalloped lines. It reminds me of a chair we had in the 1950s, but it actually looks rather pretty and definitely sets her apart from the guys who absolutely are not free to wear orange suits. She speaks in a solid, stern voice that has nothing to do with wavy orange patterns. She speaks in as straight, navy blue line.

I expect a lot of questions on why the Iraq war is bad and Bush lied, but none like:

1. How would you avoid the likely genocidal slaughter if we cut and run from Iraq?

2. How would you deal with Islamic terrorism?

3. After you closed Gitmo, what would you do with those close associates of Bin Laden that we have in custody? Free them to attack us again?

4. The EU3 as been talking to Iran about stopping its nuclear weapons program for 3 years and failed. What would you do as President to keep Iran from getting the bomb and destroying Israel?

5. If President, how would you secure our American borders? Or should we allow open immigration from the rest of the world?

6. You are in Congress, why haven't you produced a bill to repeal "don't ask, don't tell"?

7. Protection of our transportation assets is the job of everybody that travels. Do you oppose the attempt to remove the "John Doe whistlle blower protection amendment from the current legislation in conference?

Hillary: "I thought that somebody else was elected in 2000." Quote may be approximate. A call for abolition of the electoral college? It's not just the nutroots still pushing this meme, it's the leading Democratic candidate!

"He gives the right answer: Kids need to know if someone is "encroaching on their privacy.""

It is the wrong answer, Ann. While kids do need to know this, they need to be taught this by their parents in the time and manner the parents see fit, not in the way some board of education (or worse, some Congress) decides.

In summary, those who want to be the leader of the free world were asked a series of pointless questions, the answers to which were already on their websites. There was precisely one (1) question about a controversial topic (reparations) and one (1) question that asked a candidate to defend their positions rather than simply state what they are.

Also, I thought the description of Sen. Clinton speaking navy blue while wearing orange was pretty astute. And while I'm not generally a fan of DaveTM's comments, I thought the acid quip was pretty funny. "Picture yourself on a boat on a river ..." jumped to mind and brought a chuckle.

EnigmatiCore: Re 21, I agree. I think she is the best of this crop of Democrats.

Echo. I found Hillary to be more presidential and serious than the others. And I'm getting tired of their evasiveness. POTUS will have to face these questions in the literal sense, so they have an obligation to tell us what they would do.

The diplomacy at any cost circle jerk, without putting force on the table, was esp stupid. I hope Ahmadinejad wasn't watching.

You'll think this is a troll, but this is the truth: I voted for Bush twice, and in 2008 I'm voting for Hillary. No matter who the Republicans run. As far as I'm concerned she's the only establishment candidate. The only serious one anyway. Richardson is okay but I'd have to call him a minor candidate. Same with Biden, who also comes off as a little nuts.

The others seem to want to burn down the master's house. The American people will never vote for that.

very nice blog you have here! I am trying to get a conservative digg alternative going called GOP Hub (GOPHub.com). Anything you can do to help spread the word would be awesome. Plus feel free to submit any articles you write here on your blog :). Take care and have a great week!

How can OBAMA be #2? every debate I watched, he was not as inspiring as many think he is, his answer are very very very shallow, most of the time he gives answers that the questioner likes to hear...what is going on? am I the only one thinks, he is just over rated...

Those questions will not need to be answered under a Democratic administration! As soon as they speak truth to the white male patriarchy and when every grievance group based on race, religion, skin color, handicapped status, or sexuality have all the "rights" they dream of, everything in the world will be great!

A body language expert, Jo Ellan Dimitrius, studied all of the candidates throughout the two-hour debate and decided that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, won the battle of the body language. Sen. Clinton stood confidently behind the podium and kept her hands on top of the lecturn, rather than nervously grabbing onto the sides, Dimitrius observed.

I don't know why Obama hasn't seized and rammed home his number one selling point -- that he is the only fresh face there.

He needs to start playing "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" at his campaign events and stress again and again and again that he is tomorrow, he is the future, while electing Hillary Clinton would be stepping backwards into the past. Why he doesn't play the past/future and anti-dynasty cards is beyond me.

I hate to admit it but after watching this debate there is no contest-Hilary wiped the floor with all of the men.

There was her on the stage and all of the rest of them.

Overall, I would much rather see a debate like this from real people than Wolf Blitzer, Brit Hume or Chris Matthews being the host.

I don't know what they have done with her but she has become an excellent debater. She is articulate, strong and reasoned...and I can't stand her. She also looks good...yes we can all still hate her but you can't deny that she mopped the floor with the other candidates tonight. The bitch knows her shit.

It is easy to see why she is in the lead.

Obama is great to look at but he is just not a great debater. He has great eyes, skin and luscious lips and I want to kiss him but don't want him as our president.

Biden was good...but he is Biden.

Still whomever is the republican candidate will kick Hilary's ass. That doesn't deny the fact that the woman is good in these debates.

1. On the Iraq question - Kuchinich and Richardson and Edwards looked particularly bad when their careless "I'd have them out tomorrow, by the end of 2007 if I started now, I the Hispanic with the greatest resume say 6 months till the last one is gone!" positions were undermined by Biden and Clinton who actually bothered to ask the strategists and military logistics people what was actually possible on the maximum speed orderly disengagement that did not endanger the troops. Clinton's reponse of the best we can do is 1 to 1 1/2 Brigades a month according to experts I have met with over the last year as a priority - was devestating to Breck Boy, Little Dennis, and Richardson's rectal plucks...as was Biden's "This is the Truth about winding down military deployment and it is irresponsible to give made up assertions.

2. Surprisingly, Obama was pretty good on energy, saying nuclear cannot be taken off the table. Edwards was an idiot, ruling out not only nuclear, but US-made synthetic fuel to replace the Islamoid stuff because "it would generate carbon".

All the candidates did the blather about conservation, ending evil SUVs. But a clue for them - well-made SUVs and pickup trucks made in the last 2-3 years will still be in service throughout any Dem Presidency. Unless gov't takes away people's older purchases. Getting rid of SUVs in two years won't have an impact for 10 years.

And I never understood why a Humvee owner that barely drives the vehicle and burns 10 gallons of gas a week is "evil", why a housewife with a family of 5 that travels 150 miles a week in a SUV is morally inferior to a smug liberal businesswoman that drives her well-mentioned "correct" Prius on her 60 mile commute into Boston and saves "a ton of gas". And does 750 miles a week. Not really. The wotking housewife in the evil SUV burns 10 gallons a week, the ever so correct and environmentally caring business woman with the Prius and "Think Green" Sierra Club sticker burns 750/38 MPG = 20 gallons a week.

Same with old folks who drive their 8 MPG RV twice a year North-South. Not a problem.

40 million new immigrants? Now that is a new energy use probem because it negates all conservation gains the nation ever made.

And even Obama and Hillary are unable to resist their paeons to the "good, pure Holy TRinity of energy" - even though solar and wind are not storable/on demand energy (maybe they can rise to 5% of our energy in 20 years) and biofuel cannot supply more than 6%.

The sappy Lefty rejoinder that "every little bit helps" is like saying that you will refuse to supply or even discuss helping a country with looming famine any major food crop because they all have environmental downsides - but will help with developing an organic strawberry crop good for a few snacks on grounds that starvation will happen, but they will feel good about "every little helping bit sustainable, good for the plnet strawberry they eat..."

3. Obama was dumb by saying he would meet in his 1st year with any pain in the ass nation willing to talk. There are 181 nations, most who are not pains in the ass to us. Would he refuse to personally meet with them? That would tie up 50-60% of his Presidential time meeting with any nation that demanded an appointment with him. Hillary had that one right. She would meet, but only if the table was set. She watched Bill Clinton piss away months and months of scarce Presidential time on Palestine-Israel diplomacy better spent in Asia, Africa, and Latin America on intransigent jerk Palestinians and Zionists from those two "shitty little countries", as the French say...

4. Just once, I'd like to see a Democratic or Presidential candidate slap down the demanding family member of a military person in Iraq or a casualty of Iraq who claims unlimited moral authority.

Starting with abandoning the rote ritual of thanking the jamoke for their family member's service.

Unless the parent or sibling marched the kid down to the recruiting station with a shotgun, they have nothing to be honored for. Their military relative's service is that person's personal choice and duty and sacrifice - not the families. They have no more rights than the "Concerned families of Colon Cancer Victims" have a right to rule on what foods it will be permissable for the rest of Americans to eat.

No reflected glory or higher place than anyone else when it comes to shaping national policy.We have to get away from Victimhood preferences and the notion that only those who have personally experienced somethinghave a right to speak on it.

***************Obama (particularly), Biden, and Hillary came off good. Edwards was his usual too oily slick for his own good, Richardson and Kuchinich were disasters. Gravel is just a nut. Dodd is a Teddy Kennedy Hack and 30-year ultimate DC insider and string-puller.

Why he doesn't play the past/future and anti-dynasty cards is beyond me.

Everyone should be hitting on the latter, because it has real potential to resonate among key parts of the electorate being fought over. This might not matter much now, but when it gets to push-v-shove time, it might very well.

Twenty-eight consecutive years split between two families, no matter which family or "who" the representative thereof, is more unlovely to at least a sector of the electorate than perhaps some think.

cedar-head said:"Just once, I'd like to see a Democratic or Presidential candidate slap down the demanding family member of a military person in Iraq or a casualty of Iraq who claims unlimited moral authority."

reader,Cut and paste this into your asshole: According to a new American Research Group poll, just 25% of Americans approve of the way President Bush is handling his job as president and 71% disapprove. These are record lows for the survey.

When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 23% approve and 73% disapprove.

I just wish the economy was better. I long for those days of the Clinton economy. Sure, the dollar was weak, but that was mostly because of our high business taxes (even compared to France). Unemployment was low; the stock market was at an all-time high; inflation was low.

The first time I saw Hillary on the Youtube tonight, I looked to check out her cleavage.

Just found out, via a post of my co-blogger, the first-recorded published origin of "cleavage" referencing breasts:

Cleavage originally was a technical term in geology (1816). The sense of "cleft between a woman's breasts in low-cut clothing" is first recorded in 1946, when it was defined in a "Time" magazine article [Aug. 5] as the "Johnston Office trade term for the shadowed depression dividing an actress' bosom into two distinct sections."

Of the three front-runners, Obama was the winner and Edwards lost big. Of his few aswers that were memorable and directly answered questions, he declared himself 100% closed-minded about nuclear energy. Weird.

Funniest moment: Richardson hestitating before admitting he flew in on a private jet because he thought he could get out of answering on a technicality (he flew in the day before, not today).

Mildly amusing: Last question - say something you lke and dislike about the person to your left. Hillary refused to say anything nice about Obama.

I hope Hillary's held to her promise to work in the White House for minimum wage.

Thank you and posters for watching this thing so I didn't have to. Used to skip as many high school assemblies as I could evade.

Have you ever seen anyone as utterly machiavellian as Hillary Clinton? That's her best characteristic. She will do and say anything to become president and then do likewise to protect that presidency. No doubt she would make a fine and ruthless president. Hope that doesn't happen, though, because I can't stand her voice. Now, off to Craigslist to see if I might find someone in Alaska to swap apartments during the 2008 Democratic convention.

Obama was dumb by saying he would meet in his 1st year with any pain in the ass nation willing to talk.

Good thing he didn't say this.

Also, I was watching the "opinion graph" during that answer, and Obama scored a consistent above 80, whereas Edwards was in the 60s and climbed up to around 73, and Hillary dropped to 50 and climbed back up to 60 or so. Hillary's answer was the worst, according to the audience.

With regard to the minimum wage issue, the hike passed earlier this year goes into effect tomorrow (today, as I write, EST). I was distracted by something IRL at that point in the debate, so I didn't see the response IRL (though I did catch a reax or two after the fact, but wasn't sure they were fair). Apart from whether the hike going into effect is good or bad or sufficient or insufficient, and even apart from the debate over the idea of a minimum wage or not, how did Sen. Clinton handle this? And did she note the imminent implementation of Tuesday's hike?

I do agree she's the best candidate for the Reps. I thought tonight, I actually think Hillary wouldn't be so bad. She would be tougher than the other milquetoasts on stage--or maybe she was going tough tonight because she knew everyone else would be going soft (text peace now, peeeps!). But when she is the Anointed One, we will all have to face the fact (because the Republicans will remind us every day) that the dreaded Bill will be back in the White House, "helping" Hillary, injecting his "wisdom," dating indiscriminately. She will be painted as Imelda Marcos, and we will believe it.

I do think it's curtains for Osama if she wins the prize--Bill/Hill would want to correct their mistaken timidity last time they had the chance to off him. Who says Americans don't have second acts?

Seven, what you said about the economy. I kicked an apple-seller off the sidewalk today, and he took out two pencil-sellers on the carom. While the three of them were tangled up in the street, a despairing stock market speculator leaped from the top of a tall building and squashed them all flat. But the ragpicker kids cleaned them up for the bodysnatchers, and the site was scavenged clean in minutes.

Between dieters and their food that could lock up 75% of the vote without any effort.

I think Thompson's wife could make an excellent meal. From the looks of things she should be quite adept at providing Republican's food. And, we all know Hillary is not much of a cook. I suppose that is why Bill had to eat out so often.

Well, Imelda was never actually the president, so I guess it's not a good analogy, but I do not want a co-presidency of any sort. Eight years is enough. Do you really think Bill is not going to be involved in governing?! Hillary sans Bill I might consider. With Bill, never.

With regard to the minimum wage issue, a number of the candidates said "yes" to the question of whether they would work for the minimum wage, but none addressed the issue seriously. Working without Tivo here, I think it was Biden who said he would if he needed a second job. Several said "yes," but none said for how long, and that right there is the minimum wage question. You start at the minimum wage. Very few continue at the minimum wage for any length of time. In other words, they all dodged the question, which was intended to mean, "Would you work at a minimum wage job for the rest of your life, [without access to the millions you have in various bank and brokerage accounts,] knowing you would never get a raise, while trying to support a family on that little bit of money?"

I think if the question had been asked that way, we would have heard fewer "yes" responses. The other side: Should any job at all, such as the sort of thing a teenager gets to pay for comic books and ice cream dates, while living at home, be required by law to pay enough to support a family? What are the teenagers (and other inexperienced persons, not to be ageist) to do, if they can't get jobs paying commensurately with their minimal experience.

I liked this debate quite a bit - liked the energy and the eloquence of many of the questioners. But the YouTube videos are hard to see even on our 27" screen, although I know that's considered small these days. I wondered what the Citadel students in the audience thought, though - not generally Democratic territory, listening to everyone talking about how we should get out of Iraq.

This is the worst one so far - the questions were so inane and softball. I mean, really, to not be crass, but this was just a masturbatory exercise for the Dems by their voters and in-the-pocket journalists. Does anyone seriously believe that there is the slightest chance that anyone of the people asking the questions that were chosen will vote for the Republican nominee?

And what percentage of CNN employees, from Cooper, the debate producers, and the CNN writers following up the story of the debate will not vote Democrat in the 2008 election? 3%? 5%? "No Backbone Anderson" gets a D for his lickin, I mean hosting job, with a -5 for the "It's not my question" pants-wetting.

The questions are nowhere near as dangerous or serious or as cynically asked as what will be asked of the guys trying to nab the Republican nomination.

Seriously - Dems don't want Fox News to hold their debates because they would have to answer questions from an actual journalist with a spine - something not one of our flaky Dems seeking the nomination can be shown to possess.

My exposure to the debates was, as usual, here and on Fox News. The Fox commentators seemed to score it for Obama, esp. apparently his having been able to successfully hit Hillary.

One of the interesting things was that their focus group really liked the idea of a Obama/ Clinton ticket. Since that group had scored it for Obama, they preferred him at the top of the ticket. But realistically, given the age, experience, and ego of the two, it would have to be Clinton/ Obama. And right now, I would give that ticket 75% chance.

One point there is that it appears that the Black contingent of the Democratic party has gotten used to the idea of a (mostly) Black on the ticket, and is starting to suggest that if Obama isn't on it, the Democrats might not get their full support. And unless something changes, this will likely get Obama the VP slot.

Too bad the Hispanics don't jump on a similar bandwagon. After all, they are the emerging demographic. And a Richardson/ Obama (or Obama/ Richardson) ticket would have great demographics.

But the reality seems to be that it is coming down to Clinton and Obama. And as I said above, I really do expect that they will ultimately get together on a common ticket.

[H]dhouse, if you’re going to adopt the tone of an intellectual superior, you might want to get your basic facts right. For example, the Earth is not round. It is closest in shape to an oblate spheroid. Look it up.

And yes, there really are flying saucers. They've existed in various forms since WWII, or so. You meant to say UFOs. Get it right.

You know, someone who describes himself as an “owner” in “[a]dvertising” should have more sense. Maybe politics gets you more excited than you can manage. Maybe you should calm down. Maybe you should re-record those YouTube clips so you don’t come off as such a pompous ass.

Looks like you found an excuse to support your prejudice, Althouse. Is this what you want for President?

"If you want to remain on this detail, get your f**king ass over here and grab those bags!"(From the book "The First Partner" p. 259 - Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.)

"Stay the f**k back, stay the f**k away from me! Don't come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f**king do as I say, Okay!!!?"(From the book "Unlimited Access", by Clinton FBI Agent in Charge, Gary Aldrige, p. 139 - Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail.)

"Many of you are well enough off that [President Bush's] tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to have to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."(Hillary grandstanding at a fund raising speech in San Francisco; SFGate.com 6/28/2004.)

"I mean, you've got a conservative and right-wing press presence with really nothing on the other end of the political spectrum."(C-Span, 1/19/1997 - Hillary complains about the mainstream media, which are all conservatives in her opinion)

"We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West." (From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D. Kuiper, p. 119 - During her 1993 commencement address at the University of Texas)

"We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices.... Government has to make those choices for people"(From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D. Kuiper, p. 20 - Hillary to Rep. Dennis Hastert in 1993 discussing her expensive, disastrous taxpayer-funded health care plan)

"I am a fan of the social policies that you find in Europe" Hillary in 1996" From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D. Kuiper, p. 76 - Hillary in 1996)

HR hasn't changed her mind. She remains a radical feminist-socialist, just better coached not to say these things in public. What she does say in public is carefully scripted to resonate with Dhim voters (no, not the Far Left fringe, the other ones) and "glass-ceiling" hormonal urges. And apparently the small-minded misinterpret bullying as being tough, when in fact they are opposites.

Being perceived as the best isn't difficult when the choices are among bad, worse and awful. And that's what we were so fortunate to suffer through last evening.

Thanks for summarizing the debate; the only thing that really struck me was Joe Biden calling a gun owner nuts--I suspect the gun owner in question was baiting the candidates and Biden swallowed the whole thing. Even if the guy was nuts, its really not good politics to call a segment of the electorate nuts by implication. Seems to me Biden has been inside the beltway WAY too long.

Not important to me who won or lost; these debates will be long forgotten by the general primary. Hillary is still be my choice for democratic nominee--I don't like her social policies, but I think she had more cojones than anyone else on that platform.

Bruce, no offense, but why should any of us really care what the chattering classes on any network thought? Most of us have two functioning eyes and ears and know how to use them without direction being provided by the "experts."

P. Rich is exactly right about Hillary. The last few years she has been posturing more centrist in most forums for this election, but still not in all. Given certain audiences domestic and overseas, her rhetoric is convincingly leftist, and seems more authentic as to who she is- a “Progressive” Socialist/ transnationalist at heart and a faker for the American rubes.

These “debate” (what debate?) spectacles are like watching candidates chew gum and then deciding who did it with the most flair and without biting their tongues. Who cares about what they wear and where they place their hands or that they care about helping people (and without mentioning terrorism)? Analyzing this soft and fuzzy focus political airtime is like taking a Doris Day movie seriously- it's a lot of fluff about nothing. The whole production is an insult to the electorate. Where are discussed the candidates’ real political ideas, actual specifics to remedy what they say are problems, and history of governance?

Have come to believe the real reason behind the Dems’ constant charges of corruption against the Republican WH and Congress was not to pave the way for a Democrat Prez, but to inure the public to such spurious charges as to forget the real corruption associated with the both Clintons in Arkansas and DC and to get Hill elected without us remembering her convenient forgetfulness, lies and tainted affairs.

[H]dhouse, you’re dead wrong if you think I’m some kind of a partisan. I’m a “right wing” sympathizer but that’s only because the left is nastier than the right.

You’re a case in point. Rather than apologize for dumping on people you think are beneath you in intelligence, education and opportunity, you attack with generic, clichéd insults. I direct a comment to you, personally, and you respond to a group of people called “neo-Geo-p’rs.”

And you didn’t “tweak” me. You pissed me off because I dislike snobs and I dislike intellectually pretentious snobs even more. Whether I put you in your place is for Althouse and other commenters to decide for themselves.

The question, now, is: Do you understand the narrow point I’ve made and will you profit from it?

There's nothing like a well rounded, unbiased and objective view of a Democratic debate between 20-30 right wing nutcases and a few liberals.

And of course, references to what the nitwits over at Fox News have to say, too.

I know this is just a wish and a preayer, but geeee, do you think we may hear from Ann-The-Walking-Talking-Trash-Barrel-Coulter or Sean or OxyContin-Rush...or, WOW...Michael-The Bigot- Savage himself??

PollingReport.com - 7/18-21/07Do you think the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties; or do you think the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there?"

Nick Danger you need to fight back and not take any crap from that commenter.

The stats he gives are obviously from some liberal elitist polling company who only polled San Francisco and NYC voters. In other words not real Americans.

I am sick of hearing from "polls" about how we are feeling about the Iraq War. Polls are garbage and are not a true barometer of what the country thinks.

I listened to Dick Morris and Rush today and they both said Hilary was lieing through her teeth during the entire debate. That is enough for me. I don't need to watch the debate. I get my news from Fox and Rush who are fair and balanced and truthful.

The liberals and the democrats and in the pockets of the NYC press which is either gay or gay friendly.

I mean come on Anderson Cooper was the host last night. How biased was that. Get Brit or Sean or Bill on to ask some real questions to the defeatocrats.

We are winning the war in Iraq and all the democrats want to do is cut and run. Republicans will stay united and stand behind our great president and win this victory.

Nick Danger and the rest of the conservatives on this site need to fight back and not take it any more from Lucky or any other liberal homosexual comie that is posting on this site.

Their intent is to hurl nasty insults at Althouse because she is conservative and don't like the fact that she has not been supporting the democrats.

Nick Danger and the rest of the conservatives on this site need to fight back and not take it any more from Lucky or any other liberal homosexual comie that is posting on this site.

Thats what Lucky and the other Lefty trolls want - to reduce this blog to a bunch of partisans tossing mud at each other, so that Althouse's commenters will leave for a more civil blog. Thats why they instigate. Better to ignore or ban them.

Their intent is to hurl nasty insults at Althouse because she is conservative and don't like the fact that she has not been supporting the democrats.

Althouse is hardly a conservative. She distinguishes herself from most Democrats because 1) she supports the war on terror and 2) she's not afraid to criticize her own party. What you witness here is conflict between a sane Democrat and the Moonbats who have taken over the Dem party.

actually i have no problems with you being so humble. it is evident that you have a great deal to be humble about.

give it a rest ok? if you don't see the idiocy of GOP candidates being asked about creationism v. evolution and some actually opting on the side of non-science...well that should tell you oodles about what is and isn't important to the national interest. that is, if anyone can tell you anything at all.

Yeah, vforvictory is definitely a leftie troll -- and certainly ham-handed enough to be Lucky.

The post as a whole reads like a parody of what lefties think conservatives believe (Fox/Rush worship, etc). The dead giveaway, though, is identifying Ann as a conservative. Nobody outside the Left thinks Ann's a conservative.